🚀 go-pugleaf

dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:

>In article <2ACF197C.2176@ics.uci.edu>, bstarr@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brian Joseph Starr) writes:
>> In <BvL4JC.Gq5@well.sf.ca.us> rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>> I think part of the problem is that we had so much farther to fall than
>> most other school systems.  I mean, the UC system was probably the best
>> state university in the nation.  It was very well funded, and, I suppose,
>> that made it an obvious target when it came time to slash the budget. As
>> you know, California is also suffering more than usual in this current
>> "downturn", and, on the average, our situation is worse than the nation.
> 
>>>It is my impression that California schools' financial problems are
>>>worse than other states' schools.
>>>If that is true, why?

>Another part of it is that local schools are funded largely
>through property taxes. However, prop 103 (or whatever the number
>was) which froze property tax levels has resulted in rather
>dramatically choking off this source of funding. The property tax
>battles for school funding are waged in other states as well, but
>none have quite the uneven battleground CA has.

>-dh


It is my understanding that the State of California now spends twice 
per capita in inflation-adjusted dollars on education than it did
in the '60s.  This leads me to believe the problem with California
education (and I agree we have a problem) is not that we aren't
spending enough money, but that the money is being spent much less
efficiently and for less real effect than it was 30 years ago.  My
gut feeling is that much of this is due to the increased bureaucracy
caused by sending our dollars through Sacramento and Washington rather
than sending them directly to our local schools.  All those strings
attached to the money as it passes through the State and Federal
government result in larger numbers of local administrators who have
to push the paper instead of teaching our children.

-Malcolm Blanchard